This is the May 2005 Middle Kingdom Letter of Acceptances and
Returns for Escutcheons March 2005 Letter of Intent.

Unless otherwise noted, all clients will accept changes.
Comments in braces {} were removed from the Letter of Intent sent
to Laurel and the College of Arms, devices, or badges in braces
have been returned or pended. Commentary, rulings, etc. by Rouge
Scarpe are placed in CAP PRINT. Thanks to Knut, Aryanhwy, Mikhail
and AElfreda (A&M), Bronwen, and Master John ap Wynne for
this months commentary.

1) Agnes of Tynes (F) -- New Name and Device --
Azure, a crane in his vigilance and a bordure argent a semy of
cinquefoil vert.
(Cynnabar)

Client will accept major changes.

BLAZON CHANGE: Azure, a crane in his vigilance within a
bordure argent semy of cinquefoils vert.

Bronwen - The maps included documents the Tyne River,
but nor 'Tynes'. Dictionary of English Place-Names; Eckwall;
P.461-2; has s.n.s for Tyne R (dates Tindala to 1158 as a form of
Tynedale), Tyneham (1185 Tigeham, 1194 Tiham, 1280 Tynham), and
Tynemouth (1095) Tine muðan. [Tine mu{dh}an]

Talan - Locative
bynames from river-names are virtually non-existent; offhand I
can't think of a single one in English.

There are, on the other hand, a couple of place-names derived
from the name of the river Tyne. Tynedale, the valley
through which it runs, for instance, is found as <Tindala>
1158 (Ekwall s.n. <Tyne>), and Tynemouth, at its mouth, is
found as <Tinemutha> between ca.1107 and ca.1170x74,
<Tinemue> and <Tynemue> between 1235x6 and 1260,
<Tynemuwe> 1242, <Tynemewe> 1296, and
<Tynnemouth> 1485 (Victor Watts, ed., The Cambridge
Dictionary of English Place-Names, CUP, 2004, s.n.
<Tynemouth>). Tindale in Cumberland, found as
<Tindale> and <Tyndale> from the late 12th century
on, is on a tributary of the South Tyne and may be another 'Tyne
valley' (Watts s.n. <Tindale>).

It is very likely that the byname <Tynegate> recorded in
Cumberland in 1332 (Reaney & Wilson s.n. <Tinegate>) is
also locative, from a place whose name contains the same
river-name.

<Agnes de Tindala>, <Agnes de Tinemutha> and
<Agnes de Tyndale> are all fine late-11th century
documentary forms. A bit later the same names might have been
recorded as <Agnes de Tyndale> and <Agnes de
Tynemuwe>. In all likelihood <Agnes de Tynegate>
is also a fine 13th century documentary form. The English
preposition <of> is much less likely than <de> in a
documentary form with a Latinized forename, but it's not
completely out of the question, so <de> could be replaced
by <of> in any of these.

I haven't so far found any way to justify <of Tynes>.

Device Commentary

Bronwen - There is no such thing as "a
semy". Suggested re-blazon: 'Azure, a crane in his
vigilance and a bordure argent semy of cinquefoils
vert'. Looks clear.

Knut - Azure, a crane
in his vigilance and a bordure argent semy of cinquefoils vert
Keziah Gildea - September of 1995 (via the Middle): Azure, a
dove argent within a bordure argent semy of crosses moline azure.
RfS X.2 difference per the "Birds and Substantial
Difference" precedent (11/03, CL).

Aleyd von Kiel - May of 2004 (via AEthelmearc): Azure, a
crane and on a chief argent three roses azure.
CD type of secondary, CD number and tincture of tertiaries.

According to the paperwork: "The structure of this name
comes from "Quick and Easy Gaelic Names," 3rd Ed. by
Sharon L. Krossa under Descriptive Adjective with Simple
Patronymic Bynames (page12)."

Name Commentary

Bronwen - The example used in the source material
for <Dub> is dated to 1411-1592. <inghean> is the
post 1200 form and <Lughdach> is dated to c1200-c1700 as
the genitive form of Lughaidh, so this name could be
correctly formed. I just wonder if there is a slightly earlier
form of <Dub> that would be more likely.

Talan - The name
is almost right: <Caitilín Dubh inghean Lughdach>, with a
post-1200 form of the byname to match everything else.

Device Commentary

Ary - Lovely arms!
I found no conflicts.

Talan - She ought
to be advised in future to make the hole in the rustre a bit
smaller; this would not only be more in keeping with the ones
that I've seen, but also would reduce the resemblance to modern
art.

NAME CHANGED TO <Caitilín Dubh inghean Lughdach> AND
PASSED TO LAUREL WITH DEVICE

Esct. Note: This item and item #7 are husband and wife
badges. Each want their own badge with the other as co-owner. I
double checked this with the client to verify.

Badge Commentary

Knut & Ary - ClearNo conflicts
found

BADGE PASSED TO LAUREL

4) {Faélán Wicferth} (M) -- New Name
(Drakelaw)

Client will *not* accept changes. Again, this is
another submission where people don't read the form and adds a
side note: "They would prefer it as one word ( I assume
Wicferth), but if necessary, they'll accept it as two. They'll
accept changing the second element's spelling to <ferthe>
or <firth> if necessary, but much prefer it." This is
a Pennsic Submission, what you see in the summary is what was on
the worksheet.

The documentation suggests that he is trying to justify
<Wicferth> as a place-name. Unfortunately, this
really doesn't work very well.

The bynames discussed at Reaney & Wilson s.n. <Firth>
are from the Old English place-name element <(ge)fyrhð>,
<fyrhðe> 'a wood, woodland, wooded countryside'; A.H.
Smith, English Place-Name Elements, 2 vols., CUP, 1956, s.v.
<(ge)fyrhð> has only two examples of it as a second
element,
<Akefrith> and <Pirbright>, whose first elements are
from <âc> 'an oak-tree' and <pirige> 'a pear-tree',
respectively.
This element, when not used alone, was apparently likely to be
qualified by the type of tree growing in that particular bit of
woodland.

The Old English place-name element <wîc> 'a dwelling, a
building or collection of buildings for special purposes, a farm,
a dairy farm', the source of the bynames cited from Reaney &
Wilson s.n. <Wich> and the place-name cited from Ekwall
s.n. <Wick>, is rare as a first element except in the
specific compounds <wîchâm>, <wîcstôw>, and
<wîctûn> (Smith s.v. <wîc>), though there are a
few examples. A compound <wîcfyrhð> meaning
something like 'the wood by the farm' is therefore somewhat
unlikely on two counts.

However, there was also an Old English word <wice> 'a
wych-elm' that is found as the first element in a number of
place-names (Smith s.n. <wice>). Two of these are
<Great Wishford> and <Little Wishford>, in record
earlier as <Wykford Majori> ca.1190 and <Litel
Wicford> 1324, respectively (Watts s.n. <(Great)
Wishford>). An Old English <Wicefyrhð> 'wych-elm
wood' would fit the pattern exemplified by <Akefrith> and
<Pirbright>. We're not home free, however, since the
question remains whether <Wicferth> is actually a plausible
medieval form of the name.

It isn't actually very likely. The modern <wych> in
<wych-elm> shows the normal development of the word, and
the most typical 13th century spellings of the place-name element
seem to be <Wiche-> and <Wyche->. In
<Pirbright>, the only <-fyrhð> compound for which I
have good information on early forms, the second element
consistently appears with <-fri-> until eventually replaces
<f>. Early forms of <Chapel-en-le-Frith> given
by Watts all have <Fr->, as do those of <Frith Bank>
(Watts s.nn. <Chapel-en-le-Frith>, <Frith
Bank>). Apart from the very few noted by Reaney &
Wilson, I've found no examples of forms in which the vowel
precedes the <r> (<Firth>, <Verthe>, etc.);
clearly the <Frith(e)> type (and in southern dialects the
corresponding <Vryth(e)> type) was much more common, and we
have at present no examples of <ferth> at all.
<Wicferthe> is marginally justifiable on the basis of
<Litel Wicford> 1324 (noted above) and <Ferthe> 1296
noted in the submitter's documentation, but only marginally.

It's a pity that he didn't want
<Wigferth>: there's an Old English masculine name whose
normalized form is <Wigfrið> but which often appears with
<-fer-> spellings in Old English charters, including the
following examples. They're taken from the collection of
Anglo-Saxon charters at
<http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=show&page=Charters>;
I've used no charters that are generally agreed to be spurious,
and I've put the Sawyer number (e.g., 'S 96') and date in
parentheses:

The name also occurs in a place-name in the phrase <to
wigferþis leage> 'to Wigferþ's lea' (S 448; 939), and as
<Wigferð> in the annal for the year 833 in the manuscript
Cotton Tiberius B.iv, Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(<http://jebbo.home.texas.net/asc/d/d.nostyle.html>).

Unfortunately, while <Wigferth> would be eminently
reasonable, I see no way to justify substituting <c> for
<g>: <Wig-> was pronounced approximately \wee-\
(which is why it sometimes disappears from late-period spellings,
as in the last three examples above) and would not normally have
been written <Wic->.

NAME RETURNED

5) Fekete Rosa (F) -- New Name and Device -- Gules,
a sea horse argent and on a chief argent, two roses slipped and
leaved in saltire sable.
(Marche of Alderford)

Client will accept major changes.

BLAZON CHANGE: Gules, a sea horse and on a chief argent
two roses in saltire slipped and leaved sable.

This has been badly mangled: the title is <Árpád-kori kis
személynévtár>. This is actually s.n. <Rosa>,
which is the form found, once in 1234 and once in 1235; see St.
Gabriel report Nr. 2854 at <http:www.s-gabriel.org/2854>.

Device Commentary

Bronwen - Suggested re-blazon: 'Gules, a sea-horse and on
a chief argent two roses slipped and leaved in saltire sable'.
Looks clear.

Knut - Gules, a sea
horse and on a chief argent, two roses slipped and leaved in
saltire sable

Catherine of Cobweb Cottage - September of
1991 (via Caid): Gules, a sea-pegasus passant, on a chief
argent two dolphins naiant gules.

CD wings, CD RfS X.4.j.ii.

Bronwyn Dawntreader - April of 1988 (via
the East): Barry wavy azure and argent, a sea unicorn erect
sable and on a chief argent three roses sable.

CD field, CD tincture of primary. No CD for number only of
tertiaries.

Malina Attewode - January of 2003 (via Calontir): Azure, a
seahorse and on a chief argent three estoiles azure.

Ary - The first 'argent' can be dropped,
as well as the second comma. This is clear of Sophia de la Mer
(reg. 10/88 via An Tir), "Gules, a seahorse within a
bordure argent," with a CD for changing the type of
peripheral, and another for adding the roses.

Rayne Moyra O'Ciaragain - August of 1999 (via Meridies): Per
chevron argent and vert, three cinquefoils pierced one and two
sable and a beehive Or.

Single CD for the field. No CD for the type and tincture of
one of four charges or for the visually insignifigant piercing.

Return for conflict.

Ary - That's just
"in cross". This is clear of Emma of Elandonan (reg.
05/1997 via Atlantia), "Ermine, four roses in cross and
a bordure wavy sable," with one CD for removing the
bordure and one for changing the tincture of the field. I found
nothing else close.

A&M - Possible
conflict with Rayne Moyra O'Ciaragain (device registered in
August of 1999 (via Meridies): Per chevron argent and
vert, three cinquefoils pierced one and two sable and a beehive
Or.

There is no CD for cinquefoil vs. rose, nor for the piercing on
the cinquefoils.

From the Precedents of Francoise la Flamme:

". . . Current precedent holds that a rose is not different
from a cinquefoil. [Katrein Adler, 02/02, R-Outlands]"

"[(Fieldless) A cinquefoil pierced purpure] We have
blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced because we believe that it is
standard SCA practice to blazon this detail. Piercing of
cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in some portions
of our period, and is not worth difference. [Tatiana Pavlovna
Sokolova, 04/03, R-Outlands]"

It is unclear whether or not one can invoke the "group
theory" ruling, as written in the cover letter to the
Novermber 1991 LOAR. The beehive in Rayne's device is on
one side of a line of field division, and has two changes
compared to the charge in the similar position in the submitted
badge (type and tincture), which would be sufficient for a CD.
However, the submitted device does not have a divided field.

From: The Cover Letter to the November 1991
LOAR

"Group Theory.
While commentary was somewhat split on this issue, the general
feeling was that to modify the Rules to define half of a group by
line of division or as those charges on either side of an
ordinary would only serve to encourage unbalanced armory. On the
other hand, there are times when the visual impact of changes to
charges which amount to "less than half the group"
should be granted more difference. As a consequence, we are
adopting Lady Dolphin's (now Lady Crescent) suggestion of
allowing two changes to the minority of a group (i.e., the
"lesser" half of a group of charges lying on either
side of a line of field division or an ordinary) being sufficient
for a Clear Difference. For example, "Per bend sinister
sable and Or, a decrescent moon Or and three fir trees proper"
would be allowed two CDs from "Per bend sinister azure and
argent, a bear's head argent and three fir trees vert" with
one CD for the field and another for the two changes to the
charge in dexter chief."

From the Precedents of Francoise la Flamme:

"[Per chevron inverted
azure and sable, a cinquefoil Or and two arrows inverted in
chevron inverted argent] This is clear of conflict with ...
Per chevron inverted ployé throughout argent and azure, a mullet
of eight points and two arrows inverted in pile counterchanged.
There is no difference between two arrows inverted in chevron
inverted and two arrows inverted in pile. Per the November 1995
LoAR, "There is ... a CD for the change to the field and
another for changing the type and tincture of the primary charge
group on one side of the line of division, even though
numerically this is not 'one half' of the primary charge group.
For a fuller discussion of this precedent granting a CD for two
changes to charges on one side of a line of division even when
less than half the charge group is affected, see the December 21,
1991 Cover Letter (with the November 1991 LoAR)." There is
thus one CD for changing the field, and a second CD for changing
the type and tincture of the portion of the primary group that
lies on the chiefmost side of the line of division (from a mullet
of eight points azure to a cinquefoil Or).

Note that the precedent quoted above refers to fields that are
split into two pieces by a single line of division. Thus, that
precedent pertains to this armorial comparison, where both fields
are split in two by a single, per chevron inverted, line of
division. However, the 1995 precedent does not apply to field
divisions that split the field into more than two pieces, such as
quarterly, per saltire, or per pall. The submitting kingdom
quoted a precedent in the Letter of Intent from September 1999.
Because the 1999 ruling addresses a per pall field, which is not
addressed by the 1995 precedent, the 1999 precedent neither
supports nor overturns the 1995 precedent cited above: "[Per
pall sable, vert and argent, in pale two swords crossed in
saltire argent and a cat's paw print counterchanged.]
Conflict with ... Per fess embattled vert and argent, in pale
two swords in saltire and a compass star counterchanged.
There is one CD for the changes to the field, but none for change
in type and tincture for only one of three of the primary charges
(as they are not arranged two and one)" (LoAR September
1999). [Adelheidis Spätauf, 09/03, A-Æthelmearc]"

I AGREE WITH A&M THAT IT UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT ONE CAN
INVOKE THE GROUP THEORY RULING. THE BADGE WILL BE
PASSSED TO LAUREL FOR FINAL RULING

We can get one CD for fieldlessness, but a tower is not a
simple charge as specified by

X.4.j.ii. For armory that has no more than two types of charge
directly on the field and has no overall charges, substantially
changing the type of all of a group of charges placed entirely on
an ordinary or other suitable charge is one clear difference.
Only the new submission is required to meet these conditions in
order to benefit from this clause. A charge is suitable for the
purposes of this rule if (a) it is simple enough in outline to
be voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior
substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges.

A tower is not simple enough in outline to be voided, and thus
two changes would be needed to the tertiaries to get a second CD.
Conflict.

Ary - Admin Handbook V.B.2.a says
"Each proposed submission should be listed in alphabetical
order by the name under which the submission, if registered, will
be recorded according to the guidelines laid down under
Registerable Items above." Because Dietrich's name comes
first in the alphabet, both submissions should be listed under
his name on the ELoI. They will both still be equally co-owners.

This badge conflicts with Ceridwen Dafydd (reg.
04/1986 via Caid), "Argent, on a tower vert an equal-armed
Celtic cross potent Or." There is one CD for fieldlessness,
but none for changing just the type of tertiary on a non-simple
charge.

Client will accept major changes. He cares more for sound and
14th -16th century German .

? ? [Günther] --"Late Period German Masculine Given
Names," by Talan Gwynek, (http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/germmasc/plauen15.html)
This article compiles names taken from Volkmar Hellfritzsch,
"Vogtlandishche Personennamen", which lists names in
15th Century Plauen. [Günther] is listed as a Germanic name
1401-1450 AD

Talan - It should
be noted, however, that these are normalized spellings, and forms
without the umlaut were also common. However, the name appears as
<Günther> in a Bohemian patronymic byname in 1381 (Ernst
Schwarz, Ernst Sudetendeutsche Familiennamen aus vorhussitischer
Zeit, Köln, Böhlau Verlag, 1957, s.n. <Günther>), so it
should be fine, as should the rest of the name. (At the
early end of his period it would more likely have been
<Günther von Stain>, however.)

Ary - Precedent says: "We note that there
would be stylistic difficulties with armory designed with a
scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to the shapes of these
charges, any such design would have a large amount of overlap
between the scroll and the escallop, making the escallop just
"barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely
overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and
for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little
overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September

1999). [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/03,
R-Æthelmearc]"

This has little overlap, so it should be
registerable.

BADGE PASSED TO LAUREL

11) {Stefanus Wicferth} --New Name
(Drakelaw)

Client will accept major changes but according to paperwork:
"He'll accept the surname as two words if necessary and the
second element as <ferthe> or <firth>, but much
prefers it as <ferth>." This is a Pennsic Submission.

Bronwen - Same question regarding the formation of the
surname as applied to item #4

Talan - >
[Stefanus] -- Serle, p. 430 [Stefanus] c. 718The author's name is Searle, not
Serle. The byname is not a plausible Old English spelling
-- it's marginal even as Middle English -- and in any case an Old
English locative byname would use a preposition, so an early 8th
century citation for <Stefanus> is rather pointless.
The same spelling can be found rather later, in Domesday Book
(Reaney & Wilson s.n. <Stephen>), and doubtless later,
though <Stephanus> is much the most common Latin spelling
in the Middle English records that I've seen.

Client will accept major changes but according to paperwork:
"He'll accept the surname as two words if necessary and the
second element as <ferthe> or <firth>, but much
prefers it as <ferth>." This is a Pennsic Submission.